2008 (12) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the sale proceeds could be returned after deducting the customs duty from the sale proceeds, is the question raised in this petition. 2. In the present case, on 17-4-1997 the petitioner on his arrival from Muscat was apprehended at the Airport as he was carrying 41 gold bars valued at Rs.18,88,337/- (international market value)/Rs.23,16,500/- (local market value) concealed in a pouch. The said gold bars were seized from the petitioner on the reasonable belief that they are liable to be confiscated. 3. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 3^rd July, 1997 and by an order in original dated 11-11-1997 (despatched on 25-11-1997) it was ordered that the seized gold bars are liable ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... customs authorities ought not to have disposed of the confiscated gold during the pendency of the appeal. Relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd.  v. Commr. of Cus. & C. Ex., New Delhi reported in 2002(143) E.L.T. 60 (Del.), Collector of Customs, Madras v. Meena A. Bharwani reported in 2006 (194) E.L.T. 273 (Mad.) and the decision of this Court in the case of Girdharlal Kalyandas Advani v. Union of India reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 453 (Bom.), Mr. Kantawala submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the market value of the confiscated goods together with interest thereon at the rate fixed by this Court from the date of auction till payment. 7. Mr. R. V. Desai, learned senior A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the rival submissions. Admittedly, the order in original dated 11-11-1997 was despatched on 25-11-1997 and by a letter dated 28-11-1997 the petitioner had informed the customs authorities that he is filing an appeal against the order in original. No doubt that by the letter dated 5-12-1997 the customs authorities had informed the petitioner that the confiscated gold has already been handed over for disposal. Handing over the confiscated gold immediately after serving the order of confiscation itself was improper. In any event after receiving letter from the petitioner, the customs authorities ought to have stopped the auction sale of the confiscated gold. However, the gold was sold on 12-2-1998 during the pendency of the appeal filed by the....